This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 

5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Follow-up of 18 INL Claims Evaluated for Inclusion 

in the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC)

Revision 1 

Timothy D. Taulbee, PhD, CHP, NIOSH 

Lara Hughes, PhD, CHP, NIOSH 

W. Mitch Findley, CHP, MJW Corporation 

January 13, 2016 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 1 

Introduction

In March 2015, NIOSH presented a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) recommendation to the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). The recommendation was to add a class of workers 

to the SEC who were potentially exposed to plutonium and other actinides during their employment at the 

Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) from January 1963 through December 1974. To this end, NIOSH 

proposed that the members of this class could be identified based on their external dosimeter monitoring 

status. Thus, the proposed class definition was:

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at the Idaho National Laboratory in Scoville, Idaho, and were monitored for 

external radiation at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) (e.g., at least one film badge or TLD 

dosimeter from CPP) between January 1, 1963 and December 31, 1974 for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination 

with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the 

Special Exposure Cohort. 

The ABRWH questioned the ability of NIOSH/DOL/DOE to identify workers who worked at CPP during 

this time period, solely based on their monitoring status. Since March, NIOSH followed up on the 

availability and completeness of external dosimetry records during the proposed SEC period and 

presented analyses of our findings at both the July 2015 and the November 2015 meetings of the 

ABRWH. The only remaining issue raised by the ABRWH was the follow-up of the 881 claimants who 

worked at INL during the 1963 through 1974 time period to determine whether their available external 

dosimetry monitoring data was sufficient to establish them as a member of the proposed class.

By October 2015, NIOSH had reduced the number of cases requiring follow-up to 7 workers, while 

SC&A had identified 11 additional workers that needed follow-up for a total of 18 of the 881 workers or 

2% of the population. The follow-up was required because the dosimetry records for these individuals 

were incomplete. In the beginning stages of the EEOICPA program, the INL site, in agreement with 

NIOSH and DOL, instituted an efficiency measure such that only annual doses were reported if the 

worker had less than 500 mrem lifetime total exposure. As a result, for workers with little external 

exposure only annual data was available and the location information was not reported. During this 

follow-up, the full dosimetry record which includes the location information was requested and received 

from the site. 

This paper provides an update to our analysis of the 18 cases identified for follow-up and discusses the 

details of the additional dosimetry found and the resulting status. 

Methods 

During this analysis, a wide range of sources (dosimetry data, DOL employment records, Computer 

Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI), bioassay, and visitor badge reports) were reviewed and evaluated. 

Conclusions on the presence at the Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) during the SEC covered period for 

each case varied greatly depending on the complexity of the issue being evaluated. In some cases direct 

evidence of monitoring at CPP clearly put the individual at CPP during the covered period and therefore a 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 2 

part of the Special Exposure Cohort. In other cases, a weight of evidence was used since the absence of 

dosimetry at CPP, in and of itself, may not be a clear indicator to some of SEC exclusion. In other words 

it is difficult to prove a negative, thus a weight of evidence approach is necessary. In some cases 

monitoring at another radiological area at INL during the SEC time period was used to place the worker 

outside of CPP during the covered period. 

Since the workers identified for follow-up all had some indication of work at CPP, either through the 

CATI or other sources, the focus of this evaluation was on verification of monitoring at CPP and the time 

period involved. Through our evaluation, several individuals were identified as being ineligible for the 

SEC because their work at CPP was outside of the SEC time period. Overall, significant investigative 

work and some professional judgement were used to resolve the status of the follow-up cases. 

 

Results

Table 1 provides a summary of the current status of the follow-up of CPP cases. As of December 2015, 

and discussed in our earlier report dated January 6, fifteen of the 18 open cases are considered resolved 

using the follow-up dosimetry results provided by the site. During the week of January 4, 2016, NIOSH 

was able to resolve two additional cases and, based on the weight of evidence, believes the third and final

case is also resolved (see ID #’s [redacted]). Thus, at this time NIOSH believes that our review of the

881 cases demonstrates that external dosimetry monitoring status is a valid indicator of whether it was 

possible for a worker to have entered the CPP area of INL between January 1, 1963 and December 31, 

1974. 

During this review, an issue was identified that could have resulted in some workers being inadvertently 

excluded from the SEC. The issue was the result of a site practice in which visitor badges for non-routine 

workers that had results below the detection limit were not entered into the dosimetry system. A review 

of the INL historical documents on the personnel monitoring system at INL indicates that only visitors 

with a positive external dose became a permanent record (IN-12056, 1966 SRDB 08130). 

If a visitor/subcontractor did not have a positive dose, the only record that INL retained was the visitor list 

or temporary badge report. During NIOSH’s data capture in April 2015, we captured the CPP temporary 

badge reports from 1958 through 1981. NIOSH did not capture the temporary badge reports from other 

areas that could be used in conjunction with other work history information to place individual workers. 

At that time, we had not yet understood the multi-badging issue from March 1970 through 1975, and did 

not foresee the requirement or need to provide 100% verification of all work at INL. As a result a data 

capture was conducted the first week of January 2016 to capture the remaining temporary badge reports 

and visitor insert cards to provide closure on this issue. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 3 

Excerpt from IN-12056 (1966) pertaining to dosimetry record keeping. 

During the data capture, NIOSH identified and selected for scanning 24 boxes of records containing these 

temporary badge reports and visitor insert cards. The visitor insert cards were rather difficult to capture

(scanner jamming due to small size) and required more time than anticipated. Currently there are 21 

boxes of records that still need to be scanned to complete the data capture. The remaining boxes are 

scheduled to be scanned the week of January 25, 2016. Recall that NIOSH had previously captured the 

CPP temporary badge reports in April 2015 thus this set is for other operating areas such as MTR, TAN, 

STEP, CFA, ARA, OMRE, EBOR, GCRE, SPERT, Burial Grounds (RWMC), EBR-I, EBR-II, BORAX, 

and TREAT. The capture of these addition records should enable NIOSH and DOL to identify individual 

work locations within the INL and ANL-W sites. 

An issue identified during the data capture is that the temporary badge reports do not include all visitors’ 

monitoring results after1968. The visitor tags or inserts must be used in conjunction with the temporary 

badge reports to identify all workers. NIOSH located and scanned all of the CPP visitor insert cards the 

week of January 4th, and is currently awaiting the release of these records. The site had previously 

scanned and indexed the CPP visitor insert cards for those monitored after August 1973, thus the data gap 

identified included workers (those not already in the INL dosimetry system) who only had a zero visitor 

dosimeter reading at CPP between 1968 and 1973. Since NIOSH has now scanned all of these cards 

(approximately 10,000 cards), the data set should be complete. Please note that many of these 10,000 

cards represent workers that were already in the INL dosimetry system. Considering this and the 

expansion of the SEC cohort to include all monitored workers from March 1970 through December 1974, 

the actual number of effected workers is believed to be small. 

NIOSH discussed the absence of these temporary dosimeters from dose reconstruction files with the 

Department of Energy Idaho Operations office on January 7, 2016. DOE agreed to add these reports to 

the dose of record for all individuals. Therefore, when a claim is submitted, NIOSH will receive all of 

these temporary badge reports and visitor insert cards for the claimant as part of the dose reconstruction 

packet. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 4 

Table 1: Summary of the Current Status of the Follow-up of CPP Cases 

# ID#* Name* Occupation SEC 

Eligible Status Notes

1 Bus driver No Closed No indication of work at CPP 

during SEC period

2 Radioecologist Yes Closed Part of SEC Class

3 Insulator Yes Closed Part of SEC Class

4 Roofer No Closed CPP work is outside the covered 

period. 

5 Electrician 

(Power lines) No Closed Survivor lists CPP <250 days

6 Bus Driver No Closed Work at CPP is outside the covered 

period.

7 Carpenter No Closed

Not SEC eligible due to skin cancer, 

no evidence of monitoring during 

early employment

8 Insulator Yes Closed 

Is eligible if he meets 250 day 

requirement due to badging in MTR 

in [redacted]. 

9 Ironworker No Closed CPP work is outside covered period

10 Painter No Closed 

Does not appear to have worked at 

CPP during the covered period. 

Also has < 250 days employment 

and [redacted] cancer.

11 Transportation

Cafeteria No Closed Work at CPP is outside the covered period.

12 Warehouseman No Closed <250 days during SEC period

13 Electrician No Closed 

No evidence of work at CPP during 

covered period and no SEC eligible 

cancer.

14 Electrical 

Engineer No Closed <250 days during SEC and work at MTR

15 Pipefitter Yes Closed

Is eligible if EE meets 250 day 

requirement due to badging in CPP

in [redacted]. 

16 Health Physicist No Closed Work at CPP is outside covered 

period and no SEC cancer

17 Draftsman No Closed

No evidence of work at CPP during 

covered period. Significant 

evidence of work at SPERT and 

TRA.

18 Mason No Closed

CPP Dosimetry located – part of the 

SEC Class, however currently does 

not have an SEC eligible cancer

*[ID#s and Names redacted]
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 5

In the following paragraphs, a summary of our evaluation of each claim is provided along with a 

recommendation to either close the case or leave open due to an issue. 

[redacted]- Recommend To Close

[redacted] worked as a bus driver all over the site and according to the survivor CATI he “cleaned-up 

spills at reactors.” [redacted] was monitored at CPP in [redacted] and received a substantial dose (150

mrem), especially for a visitor to CPP. [redacted] was then monitored via bioassay for potential fission 

product intake. This external and internal monitoring could be indicative of cleaning up a spill, however, 

CPP did not have any reactors. This later point could be a nuance or subtlety since the CATI was 

conducted with a survivor and [redacted] passed away in [redacted]. In [redacted], [redacted] was 

monitored for external exposure at TAN (Area 07), which is also indicated on his locator card. [redacted] 

was monitored at CPP again in [redacted]. 

While there is indication that [redacted] worked at CPP both before and after the SEC time period which 

is consistent with his interview which did not provide dates or a time frame, there is no indication of work 

at CPP during the SEC period. 

 

[redacted] - Recommend To Close

[redacted] was a radioecologist from [redacted]. He collected and analyzed environmental samples from 

around the site. CPP is listed on his locator card. This individual was externally monitored in [redacted] 

from the Central Facilities (Area 754). Since he could have performed work at CPP during multi-badging 

period, and not have been directly monitored at CPP, he is part of the SEC Class.

[redacted] - Recommend To Close

[redacted] discussed a credible incident at CPP in which his clothes were confiscated during the

[redacted] time period. The Department of Labor (DOL) initial claim application indicates initial work at 

INL at CPP from [redacted]. An affidavit from a co-worker [redacted] does not mention CPP during this 

time period but does mention other areas. The affidavit indicates [redacted] worked with [redacted] at 

EBR-II from [redacted] and then at NRF from [redacted]. The Master file card indicates [redacted] 

worked as insulator for Industrial Insulation Company in [redacted] as well as [redacted], and J.F Prichard 

Company in [redacted] which is consistent with the affidavit.
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 6

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] Master File Card (front)

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] Master File Card (Back)

[redacted] was monitored for external exposure at MTR and Central Facilities in [redacted]. In

[redacted], he was monitored at CPP and his employer was Industrial Insulation Company which is 

consistent with information on the Master File Card. However, this is inconsistent with his initial claim 

application and two years prior to his self-reported start of employment. [redacted] was monitored at 

EBR-II in [redacted] and the Test Area North Construction (AX) in [redacted]. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] monitoring at CPP in [redacted] with Industrial Insulation

In summary, [redacted] worked at CPP under an earlier time period not previously claimed on the DOL 

claim forms. We believe the CPP dates reported by [redacted] are in error by a couple of year. During

[redacted] [redacted] has extensive monitoring at EBR-II. [redacted] colleague [redacted] in an affidavit 

indicates work for J.F Prichard at EBR-II in [redacted] and at NRF from [redacted] which is again 

supported by the dosimetry monitoring data. 

Based upon[redacted] timeline, his work at CPP appears to pre-date the EBR-II and NRF work which is 

also consistent with the dosimetry records indicating work for Industrial Insulation and monitoring at CPP 

in the [redacted] time frame. Regardless [redacted] was monitored for radiation exposure in [redacted] at 

the Technical Support Facility (TSF) and is therefore eligible to be part of the class if the 250 day 

employment criteria is met. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 7

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

Dosimetry records indicate [redacted] worked at CPP from [redacted]. The locator card indicates the 

work location as 115 which is CPP quarterly dosimetry so one would not expect more than a couple of 

badges during this time period. [redacted] indicated that he was involved in an incident at CPP in the 

“early 1970’s” with[redacted] other individuals [redacted]. The dosimetry reports that lists [redacted] in 

[redacted] also contains dose information for [redacted], thus we believe that the incident [redacted] 

described occurred in [redacted] which is outside the covered period. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

Dosimetry Report showing [redacted]

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

Dosimetry Report showing [redacted]

These two reports, with a slightly different combination of names, support [redacted] CATI of two 

incidents at CPP, however both incidents appear to have occurred in [redacted]. 

According to security information and the Master Card file, [redacted] earliest work on site is [redacted] 

based on the first issuance of a security credential. It appears that [redacted] only worked for a [redacted] 

period until [redacted]. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] Master File Card

A search of the CPP dosimetry in [redacted] did not reveal any dosimetry for [redacted] at CPP. Each of 

the individuals that [redacted] noted as working with him at CPP were also searched and no dosimetry 

was found for them in either [redacted]. [redacted] could have been badged in another area during this 

time period or might have worked in an area that did not require badging. The CPP work described by 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 8

[redacted] in his CATI is consistent with dosimetry monitoring in [redacted]. There is no indication that 

[redacted] worked at CPP during the SEC covered period. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

The survivor CATI indicates that [redacted] did power line construction, outside work, setting 

transmission posts, and stringing wire. This work is characteristic of outside electrical power line work. 

During the proposed INL SEC [redacted] was only monitored for radiation exposure at the Test Area 

North Construction (AX) area in [redacted] for [redacted] during the covered period. The survivor CATI 

indicates work in multiple areas (CPP, RWMC, TAN, MRF, GERT, GET, EBR2, and NRF) but no time 

periods were given for work in each area. Dosimetry data in the 1980s and 1990s indicates monitoring at 

CPP, PBF, TAN, TRA, and RWMC which is consistent with the information reported in the CATI. In 

summary while there is evidence that [redacted] worked at and was monitored at CPP in the later time 

period, there is no evidence of work at CPP during the SEC time period. 

Furthermore, the EE only has a total of [redacted] days of employment during the SEC at INL, but does 

have up to [redacted] days of employment at the Nevada Test Site (another SEC site) in [redacted]. This 

further indicates that we was not at INL during [redacted]. This would make his combined total 

[redacted] days of employment which would not qualify him for the SEC at this time. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] indicated on a [redacted] in-vivo questionnaire that he had previously worked approximately 

[redacted] months at CPP. A review of the dosimetry records indicate that [redacted] was monitored at 

CPP starting in [redacted]. This is indicated by the daily wear of pocket ionization chambers and weekly 

film badges starting [redacted]. The weekly film badge monitoring continued through March 29, 1958 at 

which time the IBM dosimetry reporting system was implemented. [redacted] first location listed in the 

new IBM system was area code 5 indicating work at CPP. His monitoring at CPP continued until 

[redacted] which is approximately [redacted] months from his initial start in [redacted]. This is in 

reasonable agreement and consistent with the reported [redacted] months on the in-vivo questionnaire in

[redacted]. During the [redacted] timeframe, the EE also appears to have been monitored at Central 

Facilities as a bus driver. Please note that single location badging was conducted at INL during this time 

period as the EE was also monitored at MTR (area code 4) in the early[redacted] time period as well. The 

remainder of the EE’s employment appears to be at MTR and as a bus driver. In summary, [redacted] 

clearly worked at CPP and was monitored, but the dates of work [redacted] at CPP are outside the 

covered SEC time period. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 9 

[redacted] – Recommend to Close 

[redacted] was an intermittently employed carpenter. He was employed by Flour in [redacted] and 

Arrington Construction in [redacted] and then from [redacted]. However, [redacted] also has an 

additional employment listed within his Arrington Construction period that Aerojet Company from

[redacted]. For this later employment [redacted] actually has two visitor insert cards for a third company 

C. Reinhart Company during the same time period but at the Radiological Waste Management Complex 

(RWMC). 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

[redacted] Visitor Insert Cards for 1975 

According to employment records, [redacted] work for Reinhart indicates this work was at the Naval 

Reactor facility in [redacted]. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

[redacted] employers based on security badging 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 10

Based on the description of work provided during the CATI with the authorized representative, [redacted] 

likely performed work in radiological areas. The CATI indicates he was monitored upon leaving the 

radiation zones which is consistent with interviews with other workers indicating the Health Physics 

monitored trades workers upon exit from a radiological area. 

Additional follow-up dosimetry indicates work Reinhart at EBR-II in [redacted], which is not noted in the

employment information above. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

[redacted] EBR-II Visitor Insert Card

A thorough search of the CPP visitor insert cards was conducted to determine if [redacted] was monitored 

at CPP during the covered period. No dosimeter was located within the set of approximately 1000 cards 

that covered the gap in [redacted]. Please note the cards from [redacted] were not reviewed. 

In addition, temporary badge reports for other areas were reviewed in an attempt to identify additional 

locations [redacted] could have worked. Based on our review, during the [redacted] time period H.K 

Ferguson appears to be the main construction subcontractor at CPP with a few Flour temporary badges 

intermixed. M.W. Kellogg appears to be the main construction subcontractor at TAN (AX), and MK 

Ferguson, H.S. Wright, and Flour appear to be the main construction subcontractors for MTR. No 

dosimeter badges for [redacted] were located in the MTR, SPERT, CPP, and TAN files [redacted] during 

the [redacted] time period when he worked for Flour [redacted] and Arrington Construction . Other 

workers for Flour and Arrington construction were located within these temporary badge reports, but not 

[redacted]. 

There remains the possibility that [redacted] was monitored in the [redacted] time period as not all of the 

MTR visitor insert cards have been scanned and reviewed at this time. However, given the uncertainty in 

his employment he also could have been working at the Naval Reactor Facility as his visitor insert cards 

for [redacted] indicate Reinhart as his employer. NIOSH has not searched the NRF records for [redacted] 

As indicated above the temporary badge issue and visitor insert card issue is known and the Department 

of Energy is currently working to correct the situation. Since a comprehensive review of the CPP visitor 

insert cards was conducted and [redacted] was not found, NIOSH is fairly certain that [redacted] did not 

work at CPP in [redacted] and definitely not for 250 days as the visitor dosimeters were typically issued 

for a day or week, but always less than a month. If he had been there longer, we would have at least 

found one. 

While this does not necessary preclude [redacted] from the SEC in that during the time period in question, 

as a single dosimeter anywhere onsite is all that is required for inclusion, the intent of a single badge was 

to cover annual issuance of TLDs. Temporary badges were never issued for a full year, thus 250 days of 

exposure is considered highly improbable. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 11

Based on the extensive review of information above, [redacted] could have been working on new 

construction or working at NRF in the [redacted] timeframe. It is possible that he worked for a short 

duration somewhere else onsite and once all of the temporary badge reports are scanned and indexed, we 

may be able to identify exactly when and where he worked providing he was not working on new 

construction which would be outside the operating areas or at NRF. It should also be noted however, that 

currently [redacted] would not be part of the SEC due to cancer type as [redacted] are not a covered 

cancer. 

[redacted] - Recommend To Close

[redacted] was an insulator for various construction companies from [redacted]. [redacted] was first 

monitored from [redacted] at the OX area (OMRE Construction) and EBR-II areas. [redacted] worked 

intermittently at NRF from [redacted], and had a termination bioassay in [redacted] from NRF. 

[redacted] was monitored for [redacted] at TRA in [redacted]. This would qualify for inclusion in the 

SEC due to the one badge multiple area methodology employed from March 1970 through December 

1974 providing the 250 day requirement is met. [redacted] may not meet this employment requirement as 

his next employment was [redacted] at CPP. He was monitored for [redacted] at CPP in [redacted] and 

had visitor badges at CPP in [redacted]. In [redacted], [redacted] was monitored at EBR-II. 

[redacted] - Recommend To Close

[redacted] indicated in his CATI that he wore anti contamination clothing while working at CPP. 

[redacted] was monitored routinely for radiation exposure at CPP in the 1980s. Dosimetry records 

indicate that [redacted] worked at NRF from [redacted] and then again from [redacted]. [redacted] 

worked in the AX area in [redacted] during the SEC period. The only possible unknown is [redacted] 

when he worked for Arrington Construction, but the location is not known. [redacted] also worked at 

EBR-II in the early 1980s. 

The work at CPP described in the CATI likely occurred during his multiple years of work at CPP in the 

1980s. During which time [redacted] was monitored and the dosimetry records are available. 

[redacted] - Recommend To Close

[redacted] was a painter for Willette Painting. Employment appears to be based on Social Security 

Administration Records and associated work for Willette painting who had contracts with the Idaho 

National Laboratory over the years. [redacted] employment is based on SSA reporting quarter thus his 

employment dates are [redacted] and from [redacted] so it is unlikely that his employment was a 

continuous three months with Willette. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 12

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] SSA employment record used as basis for employment at INL in [redacted] and [redacted]

During the CATI, [redacted] indicated that he worked at the Breeder Reactor and INTEC (Idaho Nuclear 

Technology Center). INTEC is the contemporary name for the Chemical Processing Plant (CPP), thus it 

is uncertain whether his work there was from the early time period or the 2000s when he also worked at 

INL. [redacted] does not appear on any of the CPP temporary badge reports in [redacted]. Other Willette 

painters do appear on the CPP temporary badge reports during 1965 (see Figure below). Thus the 

Willette Paint Company did conduct work at CPP in 1965 and their workers were monitored, however, 

[redacted] was not employed during this time period. The 1966 CPP temporary badge reports indicates 

that Devoe Painters conducted work during May and November 1966, but there are no mention of 

Willette Painters during that year. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

Example of Willette Painters monitored at CPP

According to the site, the first record of employment was in [redacted] when [redacted] worked for ANLW on the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II). 

This is in agreement and consistent with the CATI, if the order in which [redacted] mentioned the Breeder 

Reactor then INTEC is chronological. If so, then the INTEC work is likely contemporary. Furthermore, 

[redacted] does not have 250 days employment during the covered period and was also diagnosed with 

[redacted] which is not a covered cancer under the SEC. There does not appear to be any evidence that 

[redacted] worked at CPP during the SEC covered period. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 13

[redacted]– Recommend To Close

[redacted] indicated during her CATI that she worked as a cafeteria worker at MTR, CPP, Central

Facilities, and TAN. Although difficult to follow due to [redacted], the dosimetry records are consistent 

with this reporting in that she was extensively monitored at MTR and CPP in the [redacted] time frame. 

Based on bioassay from Central Facilities, [redacted] appears to have worked at the Central Facilities 

cafeteria in [redacted] timeframe. [redacted] appears to have worked for Dispatch starting around

[redacted]. [redacted] indicated in her CATI that her Dispatch work location was [redacted]. [redacted] 

indicated that occasionally she would go out to the site and work at the Depot. [redacted] extensive 

monitoring during her time at CPP and MTR as a cafeteria worker supports that all workers including 

non-radiological were monitored entering CPP. There does not appear to be any evidence that [redacted] 

worked at CPP during the SEC covered period. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] was a warehouseman and indicated extensive work at CPP building 698 during his CATI. 

Follow-up dosimetry records indicate that [redacted] did work at CPP from [redacted] and has extensive 

monitoring records during this time period. On his DOL claim application, [redacted] only indicated 

employment from [redacted] at CPP. During is DOL Occupational History Interview Summary, 

[redacted] again only indicates that he worked at INL from [redacted]. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act]

[redacted] Occupational History Interview

The early employment reported for [redacted] with Kellogg Company in [redacted] is questionable as to 

whether that is the same [redacted]. The site in their most recent response provides dosimetry for a

[redacted] in [redacted] who was a visitor from DuPont in Aiken South Carolina. Another [redacted] who 

worked at CPP in [redacted]. There are however, some visitor badges for [redacted] in [redacted] at 

RWMC, TRA, and CPP. [redacted] Arrington construction employment from [redacted] was for less than 

[redacted] days, but is during the SEC covered period. However, since [redacted] does not have 250 days 

of employment during the SEC period and we are not sure that we are not seeing multiple [redacted], we 

recommend closing this case.
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 14

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] was an electrician who was intermittently monitored at CPP from [redacted]. During 

[redacted] early years of employment [redacted], he worked out of MX (MTR Construction, Area 17) and 

OX (OMRE Construction, Area 23) areas. [redacted] also work on the SL-1 (Area 16) accident recovery 

and was monitored extensively in [redacted]. He received a 0.5 rem exposure during the SL-1 recovery. 

In [redacted] additional dosimetry for [redacted] was found on the Temporary Badge Reports for MTR. 

In [redacted], [redacted] appears to have worked at NRF which is not a covered facility. There is no 

evidence of work at CPP during the covered period. Furthermore, [redacted] was diagnosed with 

[redacted] which is not a covered cancer under the SEC. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] was an electrical engineer who indicated during his CATI that he worked at MTR, ETR, ATR, 

reactor sites and sodium reactor facility. Dosimetry records support this in that he was extensively 

monitored at MTR throughout his employment from [redacted]. The only indication of CPP work was on 

his DOL form in which he indicated that he worked with the power distribution at all facilities including 

CPP, Central Facilities, Test Area North, RWMC and others. Given [redacted] extensive monitoring 

records at MTR with no apparent visitor badges at CPP, it is unlikely [redacted] entered the CPP fence 

line. Furthermore, the EE has less than 250 days employment within the SEC time period and would also 

not be eligible for the SEC due claimed [redacted]. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] was monitored at CPP starting in [redacted] and is therefore eligible for the SEC providing he 

meets the 250 day requirement. 

[redacted] – Recommend To Close

[redacted] worked the vast majority of his employment at INL at the MTR reactor. [redacted] has

extensive monthly monitoring at MTR as well as bioassay indicating work at MTR. During the CATI, 

[redacted] noted that he conducted some surveys at CPP following criticality accidents. The CPP 

temporary badge reports support this work in that [redacted] was found on the November 5, 1959 report 

which follows the October 16, 1959 criticality event at CPP. Mr. Petersen was also found on four 

additional 1961 CPP temporary badge reports following the January 25, 1961 criticality event at CPP, 

The dosimetry records are consistent with information provided during the CATI. A search of the CPP 

temporary badge reports from 1963 through the end of [redacted] employment at INL in [redacted] did 

not reveal any additional work at CPP, thus there is no evidence of work at CPP during the covered 

period. Furthermore, [redacted] worked at the Hanford site from [redacted] and is eligible for inclusion in 

the SEC based on his work at Hanford, however, he was diagnosed with [redacted] which is not a 

covered cancer under the SEC. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 15

[redacted] – Closed

[redacted] was a draftsman out of the Central Facilities. [redacted] has several bioassay [redacted]. 

Initially no external monitoring during the same time period was reported by the site. Due to the issue 

identified above, [redacted] did not have a positive recorded dose prior to 1966 and therefore, his 

dosimetry was never entered into the site dosimetry system. Upon review of the temporary badge reports, 

20 temporary dosimeters were issued to [redacted] (under various name spellings) from [redacted]. The 

table below lists the two areas as well as the dates of the temporary dosimeters that were located. 

Temporary Badge Report Listings for [redacted] 

Area Last Name* FI* Suffix* Start date* End Date* Gamma

Dose

Spelling 

Variation

SPERT 0 1

SPERT 0 1

SPERT 0 1

SPERT 0 2

SPERT 0 1

SPERT 0 3

SPERT 0 4

SPERT 0 4

MTR 0 5

MTR 0 1

MTR 0 4

MTR 0 1

MTR 0 6

MTR 0 7

MTR 0 8

SPERT 0 1

MTR 0 4

SPERT 0 4

MTR 0 9

MTR 0 10

*[redacted]

The only indication of work at CPP is a single whole body count analysis form that lists CPP on

[redacted]. This indication is believed to be a typographical error in that his Whole Body Counting 

questionnaire on the same date [redacted] lists Central Facilities building 689 as his present work area. 

On the same questionnaire, [redacted] indicates that he has been in the work area for [redacted] years 

which is consistent with his other urinalysis data that indicates his work area as Central Facilities. 

[redacted] 20 dosimeters during the[redacted] time period only place him at SPERT and TRA. Dosimetry 

for [redacted] was not found during a review of the temporary badge reports for CPP and TAN areas. 
This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH 

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This 

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: 

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC 

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 16

[redacted] also has multiple external visitor badges in the late 1970s (1976+) and 1980s from TRA, TAN, 

SPERT, and CPP. 

[redacted]- Closed

[redacted] initial employment as a mason at INL was in [redacted]. He is listed on two dosimetry reports, 

the first is Area 03 which is Central Facilities and the second is Area 17 which is the MX construction 

area. In [redacted] he was also monitored via bioassay out of the Central Facilities area. Two weeks 

later, [redacted] was monitored via bioassay the location was listed as MTR, however, there is no 

dosimeter badge for MTR listed. 

In [redacted], [redacted] was again monitored via bioassay, however, this time the location is listed as 

CPP. Temporary badge reports and INL visitor dosimeter cards were reviewed during the week of 

January 4, 2016 onsite. Three [redacted] visitor dosimeters for [redacted] were found indicating 

monitoring at CPP. 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

IMAGE REMOVED

[Privacy Act] 

The dates are consistent with the bioassay result dates and clearly make [redacted] eligible for the SEC. It 

should be noted, however, that currently [redacted] is not part of the SEC due to cancer type [redacted]. 

Should [redacted] develop an additional covered cancer, he would be part of the SEC. 

Summary

NIOSH has come to closure on all of the 881 (100%) of the claims that had covered employment during 

the recommended SEC period. Thus, at this time NIOSH believes that our review of the 881 cases 

demonstrates that external dosimetry monitoring status is a valid indicator of whether it was possible for a 

worker to have entered the CPP area of INL between January 1, 1963 and December 31, 1974. 

References

The primary reference source for each evaluation was the individual’s claimant files as provided by the 

Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Energy (DOE). In addition the CPP and CX 

Dosimetry reports and the CPP Temporary Badge Reports were used.